## Source: Lenin Miscellany XL, p. 325
## Date: 1915

...logo. The constitutional principle of the proletarian party is democracy, and if the historically conditioned form of politics of parliamentary reforms in Germany has until now provided the opportunity to appeal to the proper force of the masses only in a few exceptional cases, then it was precisely to this historical conditioning that the system of representation was subordinated, the system of leadership, whose center of gravity was concentrated on the conduct of negotiations.

|| In the era of imperialism and the approaching revolutionary period, the center of gravity of proletarian politics is concentrated in the actions of the masses themselves; and this change in the forms of class struggle must necessarily express itself in an expansion of the rights of the masses in their own organizations.

The gigantic struggle raging in the world since ancient communal common property was replaced by private property in the means of production is approaching its final phase. Private property in the means of production, which has embraced the whole world in order to establish its dominion over it, has transformed the laboring masses of the world into slaves of capital. To the fierce class battles within its own country, capital has added war of peoples against peoples, and in its highest form of development has turned world war into a permanently functioning institution, whose operations are interrupted by periods of armed truce. Capital no longer finds it sufficient to exploit and enslave the laboring masses — it compels them also to engage in mutual slaughter in the name of the glory of world profits. But at the same time, by means of the internationalization of mass murder, it simultaneously multiplies many times over the solidarity of interests among the proletarians of all countries, which in any case was already present by virtue of the international character of exploitation. After the conclusion of this war, which one German official military writer, Frobenius, quite aptly calls the first world war, in all countries more turbulently and forcefully than ever before will resound the summons: Proletarians of all countries, unite! And while the monopolists of all countries strive with fire and blood to secure their share of world profits, the proletarians of the whole world will remember that they must conquer the world and that upon their unity and cohesion depends when, at last, peace will come to the earth, when the time will come that the last proletarian will stride across free earth as a free man, that the masses, which create all values, will possess them and consume them with joy.

30—31.
44—45?? 46?? *

Translated from the German

* This note was made by V. I. Lenin on the third page of the cover. It indicates the pages of the brochure. See the present miscellany, p. 306, 310, 310—311.

1 Heinrich Laufenberg — a German left social-democrat, publicist. During the world imperialist war he held internationalist positions. After the November revolution of 1918 he joined the Communist Party of Germany, in which he soon headed a "left" opposition. 

After the "left" opposition was expelled from the CPG in October 1919, Laufenberg took part in founding the so-called Communist Workers' Party of Germany. In 1920 he was expelled from the CWPG. Subsequently, having withdrawn from the workers' movement, he collaborated in anarchist journals, writing on cultural questions.

Fritz Wolffheim — a German left social-democrat. During the world imperialist war he held internationalist positions. After the November revolution of 1918 in Germany he joined the Communist Party of Germany, in which together with H. Laufenberg he headed a "left" opposition. After the "left" opposition was expelled from the CPG in October 1919, Wolffheim took part in the creation of the so-called Communist Workers' Party of Germany. At the end of 1920 he was expelled from the CWPG. Subsequently he withdrew from the workers' movement.

Laufenberg and Wolffheim's brochure "Demokratie und Organisation. Grundlinien proletarischer Politik" was published in Hamburg in 1915.

2 On August 24, 1914, the social-democratic faction in the German Reichstag voted together with bourgeois representatives in favor of granting Kaiser Wilhelm II's government a 5-billion-mark military credit, thereby approving the imperialist policy of Wilhelm II. As was later revealed, the left social-democrats, when discussing this question in the social-democratic faction before the Reichstag session, were opposed to providing the government with credits for war, but submitted to the decision of the opportunist majority and voted for the credits.

3 Albert Südekum — one of the opportunistic leaders of German social-democracy. During the world imperialist war — a social-chauvinist. He preached imperialist views on the colonial question and fought against the revolutionary movement of the working class.

Wolfgang Heine — a German politician, right-wing social-democrat, an advocate by profession. During the world imperialist war — a social-chauvinist. After the November revolution of 1918 in Germany, Heine was Minister of Justice, and in 1919—1920 he was Minister of Internal Affairs of the Prussian government. From 1920 he withdrew from political activity.

4 Philipp Scheidemann — one of the leaders of the far-right, opportunistic wing of German social-democracy. From 1903 he was a member of the social-democratic faction of the Reichstag. From [1910] he was a member of the Executive Committee of the Social-Democratic Party of Germany. In the years of the world imperialist war — an ardent social-chauvinist. In February—June 1919 he headed the coalition government of the Weimar Republic and was one of the organizers of the bloody suppression of the German workers' movement in 1918—1921. Subsequently he withdrew from active political activity.

5 Konrad Hänisch — a German social-democrat, publicist. Deputy of the Prussian diet. During the world imperialist war — one of the ideologists of German social-chauvinism. In 1918—1921 — Prussian Minister of Cults and Enlightenment.

Paul Lensch — a German social-democrat. In 1905—1913 he was editor of the organ of the left wing of the Social-Democratic Party of Germany, "Leipziger Volkszeitung." From the beginning of the world imperialist war he took the position of social-chauvinism. After the war — chief editor of the organ of the Ruhr industrial magnates — the newspaper "Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung." In 1922, at the demand of rank-and-file members of the Social-Democratic Party of Germany, he was expelled from its ranks.

Max Grunwald — an economist, man of letters, for a long time worked as an archivist in the archive of the German Social-Democratic Party.

## ANNOTATIONS ON P. GOHIER'S BROCHURE
## "DYING SOCIALISM AND THE SOCIALISM THAT MUST BE REBORN"1

[1915, later March — earlier September]

## DYING SOCIALISM

### EXPECTATION AND DISAPPOINTMENT

On the first of August, 1914, war broke out. During the week before and after that now famous date, millions of people waited. They were aware of the existence in their countries of large detachments of socialists, united on the international scale by moral agreement, renewed at congresses held in the principal European capitals.

What would happen? Would the adopted resolutions, the declarations of leaders, and the ovations of armies of social revolution transform themselves into a formidable uprising sweeping away criminal governments in its rush?

Alarm seized the whole world. And then came disappointment.

Then the opponents of socialism, who feared emancipatory outbursts, began to laugh. Relieved of the concerns which the proletariat caused them, they mocked in every way the helplessness of the working masses, inquired among themselves about the impression produced, and obstinately and viciously commented in the press devoted to them upon the enigmatic position of the International.

As befits good comrades, we tried to justify our friends from the warring countries, declaring that the treacherous war broke out like a thunderbolt from a clear sky, catching them unawares, poorly informed, having no representatives in diplomatic spheres and no trusted persons in financial organs. However, all these justifications failed to satisfy us. We felt uneasy, as if our conscience were immersed in the murky water of ambiguity and falsehood.

### THE PAST AND THE DECISIONS OF THE INTERNATIONAL

Indeed, the International was not born yesterday. It has its past and its purpose. It possesses a doctrine. It unites under its banner millions of proletarians who have displayed uncommon energy and steadfastness in the struggle against the bourgeois-capitalist regime. Revolutionary epochs have left a vivid memory of themselves. Each national proletariat has its sacred places where the first apostles of social liberation fell. In the course of the past century in Italy, France, Germany, Russia, etc., broad popular masses, moved by noble instinct or impelled by the needs of economic struggle, rose up against their class enemy without calculating their chances of victory beforehand. Their defeat or their heroism served as example and consolation for the popular masses in our time. Thus there arose that patrimony of revolutionary glory from which the proletariat draws inspiration.

Even if one examines the problem of socialism outside the realm of emotions, the working class has by no means agreed to break with its tradition or to abandon the method which makes it possible to direct energy toward the achievement of the highest noble goal.

Of course, for each situation there is needed an appropriate and well-suited action. It requires certain means and a rational economy of forces, depending on the importance of the concrete goals which socialist organizations pursue in the practical sphere. However, for exceptional situations exceptional measures are needed. Serious illnesses — strong medicines. When a terrible threat plunges half of Europe into despair, it is necessary, in order to avoid catastrophe, to apply all available means and to call upon the proletariat to display all the daring it has in reserve. Such was the decision of our international congresses, which after lengthy debates formulated the tactics that were to be pursued, in particular in the face of possible war.

As far back as 1871, Bebel and Liebknecht, refusing to vote for military credits, although Germany at that time was in a state of legitimate self-defense, underscored that fundamental truth that the interests and ideals of the people can at no time, even temporarily, coincide with the interests of the ruling bourgeoisie. Their position also confirmed the fact that the capitalist system inevitably draws its country into external conflicts which by no means violate the international solidarity of proletarians and do not bring closer together the antagonistic classes within a country.

In socialist circles no one has ever disputed the absolute legitimacy of the position of these two comrades.

The resolutions of the congresses go even much further. Unconcerned with the position taken by the deputies of the respective parliaments, they directly address the masses and impel them to revolutionary and insurrectionary actions.

In 1907 in Stuttgart, in a unanimously adopted declaration, it was affirmed that "the duty of the working class of all 'respective' (that is, interested) countries is to apply all efforts to prevent war by all means which will be recognized by them as most suitable and which, of course, may be different depending on the degree of intensity of the class struggle and the general political situation."

"If, nevertheless, war, despite all this, still begins," it states further in the same declaration, "then they are obliged to apply all efforts to bring about its cessation as soon as possible and to make fullest use of the economic and political crisis caused by the war in order to shake the deep strata of society and accelerate the fall of the power of capital."

Three years later in Copenhagen two French socialists presented to the congress a proposal to consider the question of a "transport" strike as a practical means to paralyze mobilization. Consideration of this proposal was postponed until the Vienna congress, which was to take place in 1914.

Finally, in 1913, at Christmas, having gathered in Basel at an imposing conference, the members of the Socialist International adopted a new, very lengthy declaration in which the behavior of various socialist parties in the countries of Europe was detailed. In conclusion it addressed a warning to the governments about the dangers which a European war would entail for them.

"Let governments not forget that under the present conditions in Europe and the mood of the working class, they cannot unleash the fury of war without creating thereby danger for themselves...

The proletariat considers it a crime to shoot at one another for the profits of capitalists, the ambitions of dynasties, or for the glory of the secret treaties of diplomacy.

If the ruling powers push the proletariat of Europe to desperate steps, then they themselves bear full responsibility for the consequences of the crisis they have provoked."

In such language did they speak at the Basel congress, which left unforgettable memories in the minds of all its participants!

Let us note, finally, that these various resolutions contain no reasoning about defensive and offensive war, and consequently do not propose any special nationalist tactic in place of universally recognized fundamental principles. By this fully conscious omission they sought to emphasize especially the bourgeois and financial character of modern wars, and also to clothe in boundless trust the revolutionary ardor of the proletariat of the country appearing as the aggressor.

But, alas! Despite the resolutions and wishes, the past and traditions, years of struggle and years of suffering, despite oppression by governments and exploitation by the ruling classes, despite unambiguous demonstrations of the capitalist international, despite years of socialist propaganda, despite all this, mobilization everywhere took place under the best conditions. The proletariat was congratulated by military commanders, and the bourgeois press praised, in warm terms, the revival of what it called the "national soul." This revival has cost us three million corpses.

And yet never has a workers' organization achieved such a large number of paying members, never was there such an abundance of parliamentarians, such excellent press organization. Yet there never was a more heinous affair against which one should have risen up.

In such tragic circumstances, when it is a question of the existence of millions of people, all revolutionary actions are not only permissible, they are — lawful. They are more than lawful, they are — sacred. The imperative duty of the proletariat demanded attempting the impossible to save our generation from events which are flooding Europe with blood.

There was neither an energetic action nor attempts at rebellion nor actions leading to insurrection.

Several deputies in Russia, Serbia, and England preserved loyalty to the principles of the International. The Italian proletariat, to which were favorable the sentiments hostile to Austria, successfully fought for the neutrality of their rulers. And that is all.

Our opponents cry out about the collapse of socialism. They are too hasty. Yet who would dare assert that they are entirely wrong? What is dying at this moment is not socialism in general, but one variety of socialism, a saccharine socialism, without spirit of idealism, without passion, with the manner of a bureaucrat and with the belly of a respectable paterfamilias, socialism without boldness, without audacity, a lover of statistics, sunk up to its neck in friendly agreements with capitalism, socialism occupied solely with reforms, which has sold its birthright for a mess of pottage, socialism which represents for the bourgeoisie a strangler of popular impatience, a kind of automatic brake on proletarian bold actions.

It is precisely this socialism, threatening to infect the entire International, that bears responsibility to a certain degree for that impotence which is imputed to us.

### GERMAN SOCIALISM
### ITS NUMERICAL STRENGTH, ITS REVOLUTIONARY WEAKNESS

Having broken faith with the declarations of their international congresses, the proletariat of all warring countries bears joint responsibility. || This responsibility falls upon the heads of leaders to whom the masses have entrusted their faith and from whom they expected leadership.

? The German proletariat, best organized, || most highly developed, most thoroughly stuffed with doctrines, grossly violated its duty.

Indeed, the numerical, financial, and intellectual strength of German social-democracy is indisputable. Animated by revolutionary spirit, it could have opposed the militarist enterprises with sufficient definite and persistent resistance to carry with it on this sole path of salvation the proletariat of the other countries of Central Europe.

Here are some figures.

In [1871] two candidates for the Reichstag garnered 124 thousand votes.

In 1914, 110 deputies of the Reichstag could count on 4,250 thousand voters.

The data on the size of trade unions are no less impressive.

On January 1, 1913, their ranks contained 2,560 thousand workers, and the total amount of annual receipts reached 81 million marks or 100 million francs.

In the parliaments of various German lands there sit 206 deputies. 6,157 municipal councilors spread throughout the most remote corners of the country the light of socialism. 89 daily newspapers, numbering one and a half million subscribers, daily spread along with information also doctrines, while Kautsky in his "Neue Zeit" supplies the leaders of the movement with the quintessence of Marxism. Finally, annually courses for activists gather thousands of young people, who subsequently form the cadres of the army of the proletariat.

This methodical organization of the proletariat seemed so powerful and was bound to ensure at a suitable moment such an outburst of revolutionary energy that the methods of our German comrades found admirers and supporters in all countries of the world. Moreover, the high level of its theoreticians, as well as the memory of Marx, a few terse phrases of whom were known to the proletariat, led to the fact that German socialism had great influence in the International. It could have done more than all others. The greatest effort was expected from it.

But numbers are nothing if personal energy is paralyzed by overly stern discipline or if the "leaders" employ their influence to extract the least effort.

The German proletariat, through its responsible leaders, heeded the voice of the military camarilla, and reservists donned military uniforms; the government's false assertions concerning the position of other countries and their alleged warlike intentions lulled the barely emerging small resistance; other sections of the International were frightened and did the same: in France two socialists thought it appropriate to participate in a bourgeois government. And so, six months after the solemn declaration at the congress that socialists consider it a crime to shoot at one another, millions of workers entered the army and began to commit this crime with such persistence, with such zeal, that the bourgeoisie and governments repeatedly expressed their gratitude to them.

* — Precisely so.

### THE EVOLUTION OF GERMAN SOCIALISM

What evolution must German socialism have undergone so that 111 deputies of the Reichstag displayed in 1914 less dignity and courage than two deputies in 1871? How did it happen that the proletariat, constantly speaking of its revolutionary action, suddenly attached itself to the policy of the General Staff of its country, and how is it to be explained that the leaders of social-democracy still attempt to justify their position?

The working masses of each country are influenced to a certain extent by ideas disseminated in bourgeois circles. It is by no means easy to completely isolate workers from this milieu. At the same time, over the past 20 years German bourgeoisie has become very realistic: it strives for large profits, for great undertakings, to secure for itself a predominant position in the world. Germany of 1848 has died, as, moreover, has the genuinely liberal bourgeoisie. Only in some countries, thanks to the national character itself, has the proletariat found it easier than in other places to avoid this pernicious influence of bourgeois realism.

Despite all his learning, Marx, by virtue of his doctrinal intransigence and his dream of the coming social revolution destined to create a new world, maintained in the minds of people a kind of idealism. However, ostensibly under the influence of pressing needs, German socialism over the past decade has gone down new paths. Bernstein wanted to discuss this and very reasonably asserted that as a result of its daily activities the socialist party can no longer claim Marxist intransigence, but rather pursues a kind of policy of democratic reformism, which he himself termed revisionism. Bernstein was sharply criticized, and Kautsky struck him down by means of appropriate quotations drawn from the Marxist bible. But when the proprieties had been observed, the party continued as before with its "realistic policy."

The social-democratic party has become what it now is. An excellent organization. A mighty body, but the soul has fled from it. The misfortune is that none of the sections of the International have escaped this infection. To uncover the errors of German socialism does not at all mean to place the blame on it alone; it means to warn all of us of the dangers which threaten the entire socialist movement by the tendencies, especially observed in German social-democracy. However, we must not forget that in the vanguard of the proletariat beyond the Rhine a small minority of the intransigent have preserved their revolutionary spirit and the principles of pure doctrine. Liebknecht, Rosa Luxemburg, Clara Zetkin and others confirmed by their actions their independence and courage. However, this phalanx of the brave apparently does not exercise predominant influence in the workers' movement.

### ORGANIZATION IS NECESSARY, BUT IT IS NOT EVERYTHING

The most important characteristic of German socialism — its syndical centralism. If the necessities of economic struggle inexorably force proletarians to unite in large unions, then at the same time it is beyond question that such a form of organization has a series of drawbacks which must be continually fought. The delegation of broad powers to committees, the growing number of officials, the concern with recruitment, directed first and foremost at ensuring an enormous number of members and regular collection of membership dues — all this destroys, unless measures are taken, || individual || ability for active action and education, which are the source of energy and temperament.

One cannot, of course, imagine a powerful workers' movement without a contingent of officials. The latter conscientiously look after the interests entrusted to them, but in doing so they inadvertently impart to the cause with which they are occupied such tendencies and tactics as do not always correspond to the ideals and ideas of the masses. Strikes lost their "mixed" character, defined by the requirements of material life and the desire for the speediest resolution of the social problem. They became demonstrations aimed at concluding new collective labor agreements. Such a practice accustoms the worker to the idea of the parallel existence of capitalism and the trade union. Thus, imperceptibly, inasmuch as in the final analysis it is a question of the growth of wages and the improvement of working conditions, the fate of the worker is subordinated to the fate of capitalism itself. Since the prosperity of capitalism ensures the worker confidence in the desired improvements, people begin to desire the prosperous development of "their," "national" industry to the detriment of foreign industry. This notion, which has become so widespread in workers' circles in Germany, enabled entrepreneurs to assert that the well-being of the working class depends on the prosperity of national capitalism. Thus, fighting on the field of battle for German imperialism, German workers at the same time contributed to the normal development of their economic proletarian movement.

In one of his articles, Reichstag deputy R. Schmidt writes: "Experience soon showed that the regulation of working conditions is advantageous even to industry, even if the profits of some capitalists suffered thereby. Unified conditions of labor ease the calculations of capitalists and counteract unfair competition. The same advantages are assured to workers by means of counteracting the lowering of wages and competition among workers. The regulation of working conditions through the conclusion of labor agreements brings order and stability to economic life."

So the trade union movement must consider it an honor to itself that it makes the profits of capitalists more stable! The goal of socialism, it seems, consists in demanding, within capitalist society, the maximum benefits compatible with the existence of the capitalist regime itself? If so, then we have a renunciation of all principles. The proletariat strives not to strengthen the capitalist system, not to obtain minimally favorable conditions for wage labor, but to eliminate the regime of private property, to abolish the system of wage labor.

How then can one now ignore the destructive effect of such ideas which have desiccated the soul of the people and broken their revolutionary impetus?

This centralized and utilitarian nature of the German trade union movement is further intensified by a rather deplorable hierarchical spirit.

The secretaries of large organizations become important personages. And in the political movement, deputies, writers, scholars, lawyers, all those who bring with their learning a certain personal ambition, enjoy such influence as sometimes represents a direct danger.

The powerful organization of trade unions and the solidarity of their treasuries has developed among their members a guild spirit. One of the negative aspects of the trade union movement, which is essentially reformist in nature, consists in the fact that it improves the position of wage workers by separate strata or "layers." This destroys the basic unity and engenders among the best-situated a spirit of obligation which makes them sometimes fear "movement," which might be fatal to their position, their treasury, their activities. Thus there is created a kind of division among the various ranks of the proletariat, ranks artificially created by the trade union movement itself.

Does this mean that the advantages of strong organizations are illusory in character? Of course not! But what is important is the spirit which animates them, the ardor which sustains them, the enthusiasm which moves them. And precisely because leaders are wholly absorbed in practical day-to-day affairs, it is necessary that the masses themselves, their conscious impulsive minority, constantly keep in tension those who risk losing their way in the labyrinth of secondary matters. It is necessary constantly to maintain vigilance in the leaders of trade unions, to remind them of the basic goal of their activity, of the lofty tasks before them.

Who would dare assert that with such an understanding of the trade union movement, that of Germany would not have given us several thousand rebels capable of carrying away the masses and by their example imposing a revolutionary position on the proletariat of Central Europe in the last days of July 1914?

The spirit of realistic politics has caused us enormous harm. We considered ourselves sufficiently clever to free ourselves from idealism which, we thought, was inconsistent with the doctrine of historical materialism. And this practical common sense served the interests of our opponents.

The masses, we said, are guided by their interests. We imagined that it was enough to proclaim the slogan of class struggle to secure their help and participation.

People are always guided by feelings to the same extent as by interests.

Years of propaganda have by no means silenced these primitive voices. Should we be distressed by this? It would be useless. For feeling and instinct are the natural conductors of idealism. By disregarding these forces of spontaneity and daring, socialist leaders were unable to direct them into the proper channel, fighting one instinct with another instinct and one feeling with another feeling. The error consisted in neglecting that part of the education of workers which consists in replacing national instinct with the general human, racial feeling — with solidarity. Thus, in the hour of danger, proletarian idealism, affirming itself in accordance with the highest aspirations of humanity, could have carried away the masses on the path of victorious actions.

"Realistically" thinking leaders, very clever ones moreover, were unfamiliar with the psychology of the crowd.

So are we not right in asserting that there has occurred the collapse of one variety of socialism, marked by its baneful impotence in contemporary events?

We condemn no one. In order to resurrect the International, it is necessary that the spirit of brotherhood revive all its sections; however, it is quite possible to assert that in the face of the highest task, imposed upon it by capitalist bourgeoisie in July—August 1914, reformist, centralizing, and hierarchical socialism cut a pitiful figure.

It involuntarily evokes in the mind the image of an enormous body in which the spark of life is about to go out.

Something else is needed to ensure the triumph of humanity over barbarism, of social justice over the lawlessness of the propertied classes.

* — You are wrong to condemn no one.

## THE SOCIALISM THAT MUST BE REBORN

### ITS MAIN CHARACTERISTICS. WHAT IS PATRIOTISM WORTH?

(1)

What are the essential characteristics which the socialism of tomorrow must possess?

It will be international, intransigent, and insurrectionary. These three conditions will assure it complete success and will call forth the irreconcilable enmity toward it which will maintain in it a state of constant daring and strength.

(2)

(3)

The bourgeoisie greatly loves to discourse on the homeland and its virtues. Sometimes it displays visceral gratitude. Socialism, moved by selective concerns, occupied a dangerously ambiguous position in this regard. But it is quite unimportant whether the concept of homeland is now a step forward compared to former notions of provinces. For us socialists, it is sufficient to examine the concept of homeland from two points of view, in accordance with the fundamental interests of the proletariat and its ideal. In contemporary society, the homeland, usually a territory with borders established by the accidents and consequences of wars or by the will of diplomats, is for the proletarian merely an administrative-territorial unit, residing in which he experiences a twofold oppression: from local capitalism and from organs of state power. His attachment to his native places, if he happens to live there his whole life, is explained not by his nationality, but only by habit of an individual character, with which patriotism has nothing in common.

Moreover, the very fact of the existence of the homeland and that particular feeling which it sometimes inspires in no way justifies the inclination inherent in rulers toward seizures and does not violate the fundamental unity of the human race. We are first of all human beings. Precisely our human essence is, so to speak, the source of our sorrows and joys, our feelings and experiences, in short, of our entire life. Our civic status is only one more burden in addition to all the other, so numerous, imposed upon us by the conditions of the bourgeois system. A socialist cannot experience a feeling of separateness or nationality which comes into contradiction with the general human feeling. The whole is better than the part, and the interests of the whole surpass the interests of the separate elements which make up this whole.

Moreover, socialism cannot regard the homeland as something truly united. Within each country social classes wage fierce struggle among themselves, and even the best bourgeois patriot of Switzerland prefers a German capitalist to the local proletarian huddled somewhere on the sixth floor. Patriotism, which destroys the fundamental unity of the human race and attempts to reconcile opposing interests, is not in a position to win the least voluntary support from the working class. It stands in contradiction either with the ideal of international socialism or with the constant practice of internationalism, which the business world, the world of industry, trade, and science, cannot wish to avoid and cannot avoid.

Modern states contain armies. These armies serve various purposes. They form a force which must maintain order within a country, that is, ensure the stability of the capitalist system. Consequently, they constantly stand against the working class. Moreover, they assist in the resolution of international conflicts by a fundamentally barbarous and stupid method, that is, by force. Consequently, they form a constant threat both to the dispossessed classes and to neighboring countries.

The existence of armies imposes enormous sacrifices on the people and subjects to a regime of cruelty and oppression millions of people who form these armies. Armies free governments from the need to resort to more juridical means to resolve their conflicts. Armies are a relic and a kind of perfection of medieval barbarism.

Armies must be abolished everywhere. The proletariat, faithful to its internationalism — this highest guarantee of national autonomy — will everywhere oppose its revolutionary will to the very existence of armies. An army is an instrument of war, and only the elimination of this instrument will make it possible to foresee the possibility of other solutions to disputed questions than by means of arson, violence, murder, and robbery.

After the war, the capitalists themselves will begin to think about reducing armaments and will undertake a division of profits obtained from the economic exploitation of the world, organizing for this purpose fraternal cooperation. But they will want to keep an army in reserve in order to ensure themselves the possibility of striking at a convenient moment. Only our method provides tangible guarantees against possible return to power of feudal aristocracy, justifying its existence only by the presence of an army, against the possibility of the use of troops in social conflicts. Only the inner active power of the proletariat, in a state of constant opposition, always "in uniform," invariably courageous, will make it possible to curb the warlike instincts of the ruling classes, to render them powerless.

Hypnotized by the misfortunes of Belgium, to which no one denies sympathy, socialists demand a change in our position regarding the army and the military budget. Must we remind them that the very fruits of militarism are what they now see with horror in countries devastated by war? We will serve the cause of peace and the unification of peoples not by means of assisting governments in preparing for attack or defense, but by means of creating in each country, contrary to the wishes of the state, a democratic and revolutionary force of the masses. No one objects to this task falling primarily upon the great nations, but small nations — precisely because they are small — are interested in the creation of a new order regulating conflicts through proper jurisdiction.

Finally, will anyone dare assert that the national question, awaiting its resolution in the Balkans and in the annexed countries, should be resolved by force? It is sufficient to note with what shamelessness diplomats dispose of territories after each war to give up hope.

Thus, whatever point of view we take, even if we neglect none of the problems specially interesting to bourgeois classes, slaughter resolves nothing. True to its past — I would say, to its instinct — socialism must again become international and anti-militarist, intensifying its propaganda in those countries where imperialist feelings and armies are especially strong. Only in this case will it serve the ideal of humanity, paralyzing the application of means of violence. It will also serve the cause of creating a new social order by weakening the force of resistance of the capitalist system, whose mainstay is the army.

### INTRANSIGENCE IS STRENGTH

| The practice of parliamentarism, the striving for immediate reforms, the fear of frightening timid minds — all this has deprived socialism of its former intransigence.

Many assert that such || opportunism || is a very clever thing. Let us not be deceived. Let us turn to the history of doctrines. When did they exercise influence? When state power tamed them, or when they were distinguished by special severity? When did Christianity lose its significance? Was it not on the day when Constantine promised it an income and instead of persecutions and torture by wild beasts gave it embroidered clothing of court lackeys?

And if in the XVIth century it regained some force, was it not thanks to the revival of intransigence which impelled it to rise up against rulers and bishops?

Since then it has been emasculated. Being a courtier of all the powerful of the world, it has retained only the professional obsequiousness of servants of a rich house.

One French philosopher said: Dead ideas are those which dress themselves in splendid garments but lack severity and courage. They are dead because they have entered into circulation and become part of the ordinary intellectual baggage of the great army of the ignorant. Strong ideas are those which astound and shock, exciting the indignation, anger, enmity of some and the enthusiasm of others.

* — Exactly so.